FINAL REPORT
Kentucky Bioterrorism Communication Survey
Prepared For:Jane Mobley Associates
Prepared By:The Matrix Group, Inc.
Date:December 11, 2006
Table Of Contents
SectionDescriptionPage
1.0Executive Summary...... 1-13
1.1Overview & Methodology...... 1-2
1.2Key Findings...... 3-10
1.3 Insights...... 11-13
2.0Summary Of The Research Findings...... 14-40
Health Information Sources...... 14
Levels Of Confidence In Health Information...... 15-16 Level Of Concern For Being Prepared For A Large-Scale
Emergency Compared To A Year Ago...... 17-20
Level Of Concern Regarding Large-Scale Emergencies...... 21-22
Information Sources Used In Large-Scale Emergency (With
Power vs. Power Failure)...... 23-26
- Natural disasters, Hazardous chemicals, and Terrorist act..23-24
- The Outbreak of Disease...... 25-26
Reliance On Resources In An Emergency Evacuation...... 27
Actions Taken In Area Or Community To Prepare Citizens
For Threat Of Emergency...... 28-29 Family Disaster Plan 30-32
Emergency Preparedness/Supply Kit...... 33-35
Level Of Preparedness...... 36-37
Accessibility Of Services……………………………………….. 38-39
Local Health Department Used For Information And Services.40
2.1Summary By Region...... 41-67
2.2 Demographic Profile Of Respondents...... 68-75
Appendix2006 Questionnaire
Overview & Methodology
This study was initiated by the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services in conjunction with Jane Mobley Associates’ Bioterrorism Special Populations Network Contract. This quantitative research study is a continuation of a study completed in 2004 and 2005 that measured the level of preparedness of Kentucky residents. Specific objectives of the study were to continue to measure the level of preparedness of Kentucky residents across the state, reveal how the level of preparedness varies across special populations and measure the changes in preparedness from previous years.
Between September 4 and November 6, 2006, The Matrix Group conducted telephone interviews with 1001 randomly selected Kentucky residents from the 15 Kentucky Area Development Districts. Within each region, age and gender were stratified.
Based on Kentucky’s population of 3,046,951 residents age 18 and older (2005 US Census), the sample size of 1001, provides research results at the 95% confidence level with a margin of error of 3.1.
Throughout the research findings, any sect of population that was not in accordance to the general Kentucky population is identified. The percentage of special needs populations represented in our sampling is presented in the table below:
% / #Senior citizens / 20.4% / 204
Physically disabled / 14.5% / 145
Developmentally disabled / 4.6% / 46
Deaf and hard of hearing / 17.3% / 173
Blind and visually impaired / 9.5% / 95
Specific goals for this research study included:
• Identifying resources Kentucky citizens use to receive health information
• Measuring confidence Kentucky citizens have in the health information they have access to
in preparation for and in the occurrence of emergency situations
• Understanding how the level of concern for large-scale emergencies has changed from previous years
and determining the factors that have instigated these changes
• Identifying what actions individuals and communities have taken to prepare for large-scale
emergencies
• Determining what factors may motivate an increase in the level of preparedness of
Kentucky citizens
The results of this research study will be utilized in three primary ways:
- Illustrate how newly established emergency preparedness programs have changed the confidence Kentucky citizens have in information sources
- Demonstrate how various sources can both improve the confidence of Kentucky citizens as well as instill a level of fear and uncertainty about emergency situations
- Identify methods Kentucky citizens may use to become better prepared and more informed for large-scale emergency situations
In 2004 and 2005, four emergency situations were presented to respondents in a series of questions. These situations included:
• Natural disasters
• Hazardous chemical spills
• Outbreaks of disease
• Terrorist acts
This year each research participant was asked questions about natural disasters, hazardous chemical spills and terrorist acts collectively. Questions pertaining to outbreak of disease were addressed separately. The survey was restructured in this order because in previous years the responses to natural disasters, hazardous chemical spill and terrorist acts have been quite similar. Outbreak of disease evoked another set of responses, and it was determined that this emergency situation should be kept separate.
Throughout this report:
- Questions allowing multiple responses are marked with an asterisk (*). Totals for these questions may add to more than 100% due to multiple responses.
- Numerous scales were used. When respondents could not provide ratings, “don’t know” responses were removed from the bases for calculating averages.
- Use of the terms significantly more/greater/higher or significantly fewer/lower/less implies that the difference referred to is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level, using either the Independent Z-Test for Percentages or the Independent T-Test for Means.
- Use of the terms somewhat more/greater/higher or somewhat fewer/lower/less implies that the difference is significant at the 90% confidence level.
1.2 Key Findings
Preparedness For Large-Scale Emergencies
Respondents were asked to indicate how prepared they were for natural disasters, outbreaks of disease, terrorist acts and hazardous chemical spills using a 5 to 1 scale with 5 being Very Prepared and 1 being Not Prepared At All.
- This year’s research participants reported the highest average preparedness rating for natural disasters of 2.74, with 39% who rated their level of preparedness with a 2 or 1. Other rating included:
• Outbreak of disease (2.40 with 52% who gave a 2 or 1 for their average level of
preparedness)
• Terrorist act (2.24 with 58% rating their level of preparedness with a 2 or 1)
• Hazardous chemical spill (2.09 with 64% rating their preparedness with a 2 or1)
- Residents interviewed for this year’s study felt slightly more prepared for terrorist acts and outbreak of disease than in 2005, and slightly less prepared for natural disasters and chemical spills.
• Respondents average level of preparedness for a natural disaster decreased from 2.76 in 2005
to 2.74 in 2006.
• Compared to 2005, the average level of preparedness for outbreak of disease increased from
2.38 to 2.40.
• The average rating for terrorist act increased from 2.20 to 2.24
• In the event of a hazardous chemical spill, respondents gave an average rating of 2.09,
compared to 2.17 in 2005.
- Compared to the average:
• KIPDA residents felt significantly more prepared for the outbreak of disease and hazardous
chemical spills.
• Green River residents indicated they were somewhat more prepared for natural disasters and
significantly more prepared for hazardous chemical spills.
• All special populations indicated they were the most prepared for natural disasters versus all
other large-scale emergencies.
When asked if they had a family disaster plan, slightly fewer individuals cited they had taken precautions and established a disaster plan than in 2005.
- 35% of respondents in 2006 compared to 37% in 2005 reported they had a family disaster plan.
• A majority (64%) of the 350 respondents who had a plan established said they used their own
resources to create their family disaster plan. Other information sources mentioned most
frequently included:
• Internet (13% compared to 6% in 2005)
• Television (6% compared to 8% in 2005)
• Newspaper (5% compared to 3% in 2005)
• In 2004 and 2005, 33% and 35% of research participants said they used their
own resources to create a family disaster plan.
Preparedness For Large-Scale Emergencies-continued
• Many of the respondents claimed they do not have a family disaster plan because they
live alone or with just one other person.
• Green River residents were significantly more likely than the average to have a family disaster plan.
• Respondents age 65 and older were somewhat less likely than the average to have a family disaster
plan than in 2005. Individuals from this age group that had created a family disaster plan were
significantly more likely to have used their own resources.
Of the 651 respondents that said they do not have a family disaster plan, 42% said there was nothing to motivate them to create a plan. Factors that would motivate them to create a plan include:
• 16% of the respondents indicated than some event or emergency actually happening would
motivate them to create a plan.
• 10% reported that they were motivated and thinking about creating a plan, but had not
created one yet.
• Threat of an emergency or possible harm to the family would motivate 10% of the research
participants to create a family disaster plan.
• Respondents in 2006 showed more motivation than respondents in previous years to create a family
disaster plan. Forty-two percent of respondents in 2006, versus 45% in 2005, said there was nothing that would motivate them to create a family disaster plan.
Respondents in 2006 were less likely to have an emergency preparedness kit than 2005 respondents. 57% in 2006 versus 63% in 2005, said they had an emergency kit ready in the event of a large-scale emergency.
• Of the 570 respondents who have a kit ready, most common items in the kit include:
• Bottled water (70% versus 58% in 2005)
• Food/non-perishable foods/canned goods (68% versus 50% in 2005)
• First-aid kit (65% versus 72% in 2005)
• Flashlight/lantern (64% versus 14% in 2005)
• Respondents in 2006 were more likely than in previous years to indicate they would include weapons,
generators, heating and camping equipment and pet supplies in their kit.
Of the 431 respondents who said they do not have a kit, 35% said there was nothing to motivate them to create a kit.
• 19% responded that some event/emergency actually happening would
motivate them to create a kit.
• 14% said they wanted to create a kit but had not created one yet.
• 12% thought a threat of an emergency would motivate them to create a kit.
• 8% claimed more information available would give them motivation to create one.
• 5% said this interview could motivate them to create an emergency kit.
Preparedness For Large-Scale Emergencies-continued
Some Kentucky residents interviewed continue to be unaware of community preparedness actions. When asked what actions had been taken in the community to prepare for a large-scale emergency, 40% of respondents said they were unaware of actions that had been taken. Among those who were aware of their communities helping with preparations, 21% claimed their local community and government had made plans to make their community better prepared. Other actions respondents included were:
• Community siren alarm/system (9%)
• Fire department training/drills (6%)
• Hospital/medical personnel training (4%)
• Individuals interviewed for this study age 65 and older were significantly more likely to say
that they were unaware of actions that had been taken in their local community.
• Residents from KIPDA were more likely than the average to say that hospital and medical training had
been established in their community to prepare for a large-scale emergency.
Concern For Large-scale Emergencies
Just over half of respondents (52%) reported the same level of concern for a large-scale emergency compared to a year ago.
• 40% are more concerned about a large-scale emergency than they were a year ago.
• 8% of the respondents are less concerned than they were a year ago.
• The developmentally disabled and the physically disabled were significantly more or somewhat more
concerned for a large-scale emergency than they were a year ago compared to the average Kentucky
resident interviewed for this study.
Among the 403 participants who were more concerned, most indicated that they were more concerned because of the following:
• Seems to be a lot of/more problems/trouble in the world today (29% compared
to 3% in 2005)
• Recent terrorist acts (20% compared to 16% in 2005)
• Community/government is not prepared/not well prepared/less prepared for
large-scale emergencies (12% compared to 11% in 2005)
• Recent natural disasters/possibility of natural disasters (12% compared to
50% in 2005)
• War/war in Iraq/ramifications of war in Iraq (8% compared to 5% in 2005)
• Increased media coverage (7% compared to 2% in 2005)
Concern For Large-Scale Emergencies-continued
• Compared to the average:
• Individuals who have someone physically disabled living in their household were somewhat
more likely than the average to say they were more concerned because of economic and
financial concerns.
• Households with respondents age 65 and older and those who are deaf and hard of hearing
were significantly more likely to say they are more concerned due to the lack of preparedness
of the community and local government.
Of the 78 respondents who said they were less concerned, almost a third said they were less concerned because the community is better prepared. Other responses included:
• I generally do not worry about emergencies/disasters (21% compared to
24% in 2005)
• I am better prepared (15% compared to 42% in 2005)
• Government seems prepared/better prepared for emergencies now (6% compared to 10% in
2005)
Using a 5 to 1 scale, with 5 being Very Concerned and with 1 being Not Concerned at All, respondents were asked to rate their level of concern for large-scale emergencies. Respondents rated terrorist acts as their number one concern, with 53% of all respondents giving terrorist acts a rating of 5 or 4. Respondents rated their concern for other emergencies as follows:
• Natural disasters (3.27 with 43% rating their level of concern as a 5 or 4)
• Outbreak of disease (3.17 with 40% rating their level of concern as a 5 or 4)
• Hazardous chemical spills (2.81 with 32% rating their level of concern as a 5 or 4)
• Respondents expressed a significantly higher concern for terrorist acts from 2005 to 2006, with
the average rating increasing from 3.30 to 3.47. Other levels of concern include:
• In the past year, research participants’ average level of concern for natural disaster decreased
from 3.48 to 3.27.
• The average level of concern for outbreak of disease decreased from 3.29 to 3.17 from 2005 to
2006.
• Compared to 2005, the concern for a hazardous chemical spill decreased from 2.85 to 2.81.
• Compared to the average:
• All special needs populations gave significantly higher average levels of concern
for hazardous chemical spills.
• All special interest groups were more concerned about an outbreak of disease.
• Individuals that were developmentally disabled and individuals that were physically disabled
expressed greater concern for terrorist acts.
Information Sources
After being asked where they turn most often for health information, almost half of the respondents (44%) said they turn to their doctor’s office most frequently. In 2005, 51% of the research participants referred to their doctor for information. Other responses in 2006 included:
• Internet (31% compared to 20% in 2005)
• Television (14% compared to 13% in 2005)
• Newspaper (8% compared to 7% in 2005)
• In 2006, Kentucky residents were more likely to turn to media sources such as the Internet,
newspaper, periodicals and books for health information.
• Hospital and local health department were also mentioned more frequently as information sources than
in 2005.
• Compared to the average:
• Respondents age 65 and older were more likely to refer to the doctor’s office for health
information than the average.
• Those with a college education were more likely to use the Internet as an information source.
• LakeCumberland residents were significantly more likely to say they had visited the local
health department for information.
• FIVCO, Lincoln Trail and Purchase residents reported they visited the hospital for health
information more frequently than the average.
Confidence In Health Information
Respondents were asked to rate their level of confidence in private physicians, hospitals, state or local health agencies, other media sources such as the television and newspapers, federal agencies and the Internet using a 5-point scale, where 5 is the Highest Confidence level and 1 is the Lowest Confidence level.
• Of all the resources listed, this year’s respondents gave the highest average for private physicians
of 4.33 with 82% giving a top 2 rating. Other ratings included:
• Hospitals (3.79 with 63% giving a top 2 rating)
• State or local health agencies (3.63 with 53% giving a top 2 rating)
• Federal agencies (3.35 with 41% giving a top 2 rating)
• Internet (3.31 with 31% giving a top 2 rating)
• Other media sources (3.10 with 33% giving a top 2 rating)
• Respondents in 2006 had as much confidence or higher confidence in all information sources
compared to 2005.
• Their confidence in private physicians increased significantly from 4.17 to 4.33.
• Average confidence in hospitals increased significantly from 3.62 to 3.79.
• Respondents gave the same average confidence rating for other media sources (3.10).
• Confidence levels in state or local health agencies increased significantly from 3.34 to 3.63.
• There was a significant increase in federal agencies from 3.06 to 3.35.
• Average confidence in the Internet increased significantly from 2.98 to 3.31.
Information Used in a Large-Scale Emergency
Television and radio continue to be resources Kentucky residents indicated they would use most frequently in the event of a large-scale emergency. Fifty-seven percent of respondents claimed they would turn to the television if a natural disaster, terrorist attack or a hazardous chemical spill were to occur and put their family in danger. Other sources respondents said they would turn to for information included:
• Radio (17%)
• Police department (7%)
• Internet (2%)
• Locally elected officials/government (2%)
• Compared to the average:
• Individuals age 65 and older were significantly more likely to turn to the police department for
assistance in the event of a large-scale emergency.
• Those that have blind and visually impaired individuals in the household are somewhat more
likely to contact community groups and organizations in the event of a large-scale emergency.
• Respondents interviewed with physically disabled individuals were significantly more likely
to contact family for help in a large-scale emergency.
• 1.1 % of all respondents also included local or state emergency services as a resource to turn to for
help in case of a large-scale emergency.
Respondents were also asked who they would turn to first if a power failure occurred with a natural disaster, terrorist attack or hazardous chemical spill. When asked this question, 34% of respondents said they would turn to the radio first for information.
• 8% said they would turn to the police department.
• 7% said they did not know.
• 6% said they would rely on neighbors/friends.
• 5% said they would rely on family.
• Seniors 65 and older, as well as the deaf and hard of hearing, were significantly more likely to turn to